|
syscall girl posted:That's a really negative attitude. I've watched this video a couple of times a while ago and I really don't get what it's trying to say. Is England facing some sort of invasion of south Asian boat people? If so those are some long-range boats.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
Europe is going to have a very hard time feeding the people that already live there when the AMOC shuts down, there is literally no way they could accept all the refugees they will be seeing in the next couple decades. This is part of why a lot of people in this thread talk about the future of the first world being one of brutality and authoritarianism, because these nations will not survive without an incredibly heavy border security force willing to gun down any incoming refugees at any given time, assuming they themselves can survive and not become a nation of refugees in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
In a spot of good news, the efforts to archive climate research data so Trump can't burn it all down are going well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Dr. Furious posted:A number of studies have also shown that when many crops are grown at elevated carbon dioxide levels, levels of key nutrients decline. It's not a simple system where increasing inputs will lead to increased outputs. Yeah, this is another interesting point. CO2-rich wheat and barley actually have a different nutritional composition. They have less dietary zinc and iron, and, according to an article I found on Nature, these deficiencies often result in shortened lifespans. So it may even turn out the crops that were supposed to be saving the lives of hungry people would just be prolonging them until dietary deficiency took them out. The article ultimately suggests breeding types of wheat and barley that aren't sensitive to CO2 in the atmosphere. So that just goes to show that the productivity bump not only doesn't even result in less life-years lost, but actually kills people faster. Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7503/full/nature13179.html We are so hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:Yeah, this is another interesting point. CO2-rich wheat and barley actually have a different nutritional composition. They have less dietary zinc and iron, and, according to an article I found on Nature, these deficiencies often result in shortened lifespans. So it may even turn out the crops that were supposed to be saving the lives of hungry people would just be prolonging them until dietary deficiency took them out. The article ultimately suggests breeding types of wheat and barley that aren't sensitive to CO2 in the atmosphere. So that just goes to show that the productivity bump not only doesn't even result in less life-years lost, but actually kills people faster. This is dumb, you do not kill more people (especially starving ones) with a higher abundance of wheat, not even low quality wheat, definitely not when the nutritional deficit is in easy to supplement nutrients such as those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Europe is going to have a very hard time feeding the people that already live there when the AMOC shuts down, there is literally no way they could accept all the refugees they will be seeing in the next couple decades. Just gonna repost this part of a write-up I made a while back ... quote:What do we do? sitchensis fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:This is dumb, you do not kill more people (especially starving ones) with a higher abundance of wheat, not even low quality wheat, definitely not when the nutritional deficit is in easy to supplement nutrients such as those. It's easy to supplement nutrients when you can travel a few miles to Walmart and buy a bottle of multivitamins. It's not so easy when you're walking a few miles with a bucket to get fresh water. The problem goes beyond just human consumption, too. How do you supplement the diets of pollinating insects when plants providing key protein sources become less nutritious? http://e360.yale.edu/feature/bee_collapse_co2_climate_change_agriculture/2991/ Dr. Furious fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:This is dumb, you do not kill more people (especially starving ones) with a higher abundance of wheat, not even low quality wheat, definitely not when the nutritional deficit is in easy to supplement nutrients such as those. I should clarify. I mean to say that the replacement of the current cereal crops with the zinc and iron deprived ones predicted under the new environmental paradigm will kill more people in the long run even if yield does increase, because of the inherent nutritional deficiencies. In other words, you get slightly more wheat sure, but that crop no longer satisfies people's nutritional needs and so, should the people not supplement that deficiency, it will lead to a fuckton more of life-years lost than if the crop had those iron and zinc levels in balance, regardless of yield. And, as is unfortunately often the case, that makes the poor the most likely victims. I can't see capitalists sacrificing yield to keep the poor healthy. almost there fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jan 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
The problem with predictions here is that climate change isn't the only driver. It's climate change plus drug-resistant disease plus imminent automation plus plummeting first-world birth rates plus refugee crises plus any of a dozen up-and-coming technologies that could utterly transform the larger monoculture overnight, i.e. quantum computing, fusion, lunar colonization, CO2 utilization, cloned meat, the regenerative economy. On top of that, you've got what Alex Steffen persists in calling the "carbon bubble," where the old oil/coal money continues to panic in the face of imminent obsolescence; a potentially massive depression that could result in India being the up-and-coming lone superpower (even if the U.S. skates on the consequences somehow, China has some rough weather ahead); several cold wars, and a couple that are likely to go hot. Climate change is the item on the list that poses the greatest existential threat, but it's not the only up-and-coming change agent. (Incidentally, Katie Mack on Twitter, @AstroKatie, is a useful follow if only because her mentions are like a guided tour through the current denialist talking points.) On an individual level, the answer's still going to be to unify, adapt, and keep your back yard as clean as you can. Decarbonization is coming, whether the money likes it or not. Junot Diaz posted:But all the fighting in the world will not help us if we do not also hope. What I’m trying to cultivate is not blind optimism but what the philosopher Jonathan Lear calls radical hope. “What makes this hope radical,” Lear writes, “is that it is directed toward a future goodness that transcends the current ability to understand what it is.” Radical hope is not so much something you have but something you practice; it demands flexibility, openness, and what Lear describes as “imaginative excellence.” Radical hope is our best weapon against despair, even when despair seems justifiable; it makes the survival of the end of your world possible. Only radical hope could have imagined people like us into existence. And I believe that it will help us create a better, more loving future. (If I had to put money down on an outcome, and assuming no real game-changers show up: nominally progressive voices claw their way into what leadership positions they can find and institute a sort of low-carbon New Deal, fought at every turn by denialists and their organizations, but aided by corporate cash, eager to spend some of their profits in the name of a benevolent cause. The third world takes it right in the seat, regenerative agriculture becomes big business, entire refugee nations begin to spring up in continental Europe, and 2100 looks like Gibson's The Peripheral: an unthinkably-high quality of life for the comparative handful of survivors.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:aided by corporate cash, eager to spend some of their profits in the name of a benevolent cause Can you explain why a benevolent cause would receive investment from these companies? Posters in this thread have debated for a while whether there is (or will be) money in fighting climate change, and it doesn't seem clear that there a consensus (yet). But you seem to just hand wave that issue away and assert that it will happen out of benevolence?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:Can you explain why a benevolent cause would receive investment from these companies? Posters in this thread have debated for a while whether there is (or will be) money in fighting climate change, and it doesn't seem clear that there a consensus (yet). But you seem to just hand wave that issue away and assert that it will happen out of benevolence? It's actually left over from a tangent I went off on, where I was talking about how a corporate-run dystopia was probably the most likely of all our available options, which I deleted for being fanciful. Call it an editing error. I do find it easy to imagine a situation where whoever ends up with the Carbon X Prize makes it suddenly attractive to maintain direct CO2 capture facilities, and for various corporations to fund those facilities so they can put their logo all the hell over them, so you've got a giant air-sucking tower in the middle of downtown with a glowing solar-fed Google banner on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:The big problem is it's not clear that land further north will be arable as soon as the temperature is nominally appropriate. Maybe after a thousand years? I'd put more stock in supplying food with vertical farming and that's CLEARLY a ridiculous pipe-dream. Buy in Detroit. The city's coming back, housings cheap its a major industrial area on water and on an international border. Most places in Michigan would probably be a good bet thanks to the Great Lakes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:entire refugee nations begin to spring up in continental Europe
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Buy in Detroit. The city's coming back, housings cheap its a major industrial area on water and on an international border. Most places in Michigan would probably be a good bet thanks to the Great Lakes. No stop it don't tell them about Detroit
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Unless you mean European refugee nations, this will literally happen over our dead bodies. Europe seeding refugee routes into North Africa with anthrax seems a more likely scenario. As much as I hate to agree: Everyone bear in mind that "Europe" is not some sort of monolithic entity. The southeastern/eastern states of Europe are willing to do poo poo far from what's normally associated with today's western Europe. And as a historical context, when things got rough in western Europe a bit back, we got the third reich. I'm not looking forward to seeing what southeastern Europe produces when faced with millions upon millions of refugees and extreme poverty as a result. Heck, we already have Strong Man Erdogan in Turkey and Greece is pretty close to following suit. Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary.... yeah. No.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
It's not so much southeastern Europe as it is the countries that have experienced the highest immigration pressures. Those tendencies will expand across Europe in lockstep with immigration.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
Bates posted:It's not so much southeastern Europe as it is the countries that have experienced the highest immigration pressures. Those tendencies will expand across Europe in lockstep with immigration. Really? Because a quick google search tells me the southeastern countries have received applications for asylum and immigration in numbers that are completely dwarfed by Germany alone. I'm not seeing brown shirts and jackboots there yet, but in Hungary (a main thoroughfare for refugees alongside Greece and Macedonia) Jobbik is doing better and better. Also, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34280460 I'm not saying most if not all of Europe will respond in a pretty bad way, but I still think that the first and worst reactions will come in "EU border" nations such as Turkey. Greece and Italy are at risk, as are the thoroughfare nations. VVV A.k.a. "missing the forest for the trees"? Yeah, kinda. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jan 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Electric Owl posted:I should clarify. I mean to say that the replacement of the current cereal crops with the zinc and iron deprived ones predicted under the new environmental paradigm will kill more people in the long run even if yield does increase, because of the inherent nutritional deficiencies. In other words, you get slightly more wheat sure, but that crop no longer satisfies people's nutritional needs and so, should the people not supplement that deficiency, it will lead to a fuckton more of life-years lost than if the crop had those iron and zinc levels in balance, regardless of yield. Like yes, I see that it is a problem that wheat etc will be less nutritional, which might have significant secondary downstream effects as described above. However, mixing in a yield increase will shoot any nutritional argument in the foot as it implies an increase in other nutrients as essential or more essential than the nutrients that is decreased. For example, if people are starving, the need for calories is acute and they will die at a much greater rate than of net iron/zink deficiency. So unless you have any data supporting a net loss of life due to that nutritional deficiency vs life increase due to yield, then your argument make no sense. Then comes the completely different cans of worms with how easy/hard it would be to make and distribute the required substitute supplements to the peoples that would need them and how both of them affect population growth/sustainability over time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Go look at Fig. 1.1, unless you're suicidal. Oh, and Svalbard managed to (barely) top 0 degrees Celsius for the 2016 annual average temperature . Its previous highest average annual temperature was -1.8 degrees Celsius. Just some reminders that the Arctic has thrown a rod: https://twitter.com/kevpluck/status/817126011435446273 Oh, and Arctic sea ice growth has basically been stalled for the last 10 days, and now it's getting hit by a cyclone. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 02:21 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
How fragile is the arctic ecosystem? Can it withstand fleets of fishing boats coming there once the ice is no longer a hindrance commercial vessels?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
No other marine ecosystem has managed to withstand unmanaged fishing. What do you think?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:No other marine ecosystem has managed to withstand unmanaged fishing. What do you think? Seriously, where do you people even come up with these questions? Are you actual literal children?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
To be fair, I don't think most people realize just how badly we've hosed up marine ecosystems with commercial fishing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
hey guys has anyone considered that we could emerge on the other end of global warming with as yet untapped fishing territories in the arctic? not to mention the areas that will be newly flooded
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:hey guys has anyone considered that we could emerge on the other end of global warming with as yet untapped fishing territories in the arctic? Just think of all the new oil fields that will open up!
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Seriously, where do you people even come up with these questions? Are you actual literal children? There's a non-trivial chance that people who are asking these questions may not be as up on the subject as you are. They might be younger than you, or they may simply be recently aware of environmental issues. Being a dick to them is counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
i saw on Nova once that the size of the antarctic sheet of ice is directly proportional to the algae blooms that year, which feed the krill, which feed everything else. how screwed is everything without a base food source? e: i'll take my answer as a one-word sarcastic response Setset fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Like, d'oy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:No other marine ecosystem has managed to withstand unmanaged fishing. What do you think? One of my favorite Canada.txt images:  Note how even after the massive collapse in the 1970s the Canadian govt still managed to convince itself it understood the marine ecosystem and proceeded to push atlantic cod to the edge of extinction. Fisherman protested the moratorium despite having objectively destroyed the fishery for a generation, leading to this hilarious exchange with the federal fisheries minister: The Wikipedia posted:On July 1, 1992 Crosbie visited Bay Bulls, Newfoundland and Labrador to celebrate Canada Day. Crosbie was greeted by an angry throng of Newfoundlanders concerned about rumours of a proposed moratorium on the Atlantic northwest cod fishery. He famously yelled out "I didn't take the fish from the God damned waters." This all happened under an ostensibly managed fishery, so I wouldn't put much hope in protecting newly open Artic waters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:There's a non-trivial chance that people who are asking these questions may not be as up on the subject as you are. They might be younger than you, or they may simply be recently aware of environmental issues. Being a dick to them is counterproductive. Yeah, at least in my experience people are really shockingly illiterate when it comes to environmental issues. It's really rare that I have a discussion about climate change with anyone who actually has an even basic understanding of the immediate and serious nature of the problem. I'm willing to bet the environmental impact of fishing is an even more obscure topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Most people I have lived with cannot even fathom the ramifications of not cleaning the bathroom regularly, let alone the deep mysteries of the global environment. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:Seriously, where do you people even come up with these questions? Are you actual literal children? The US Supreme Court thread just had a five page derail on the wonderful triple point of constitutional law, personal initiative in refusing illegal orders, and Guantanamo Bay as if literally anything could have been done by enlisted guys in the face of what was by congressional and executive review legitimized. The Trump (actual supporter GBS) threads are insistent that, no, this time around the rich republicans in office aren't going to gently caress us swiftly as possible. The replies to the Death Spiral Guy on Twitter are largely about acc being conspiratorial globalism, why is it cold where I live right now? FYI I don't get what's happening in that polar vortex animation with the warm part displacing the vortex is over where I live right now. That picture looks a lot like what weathermen use, and they're wrong all the time, so you must be a weatherman too check and mate. There's children everywhere, including this complaint post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
It's all a bit depressing, yes. (Arctic temps)
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
I forgot something yesterday - remember that big loving crack in Antarctica? Turns out, they found another one in an entirely different area - the Brunt Ice Shelf; this was found on Halloween, but there ain't much in the way of images.. There happens to be a thing called the Halley Research Station on the shelf. It was already being moved because of a large chasm, but this new crack is in a worse spot: Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jan 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I forgot something yesterday - remember that big loving crack in Antarctica? Trump will solve this problem by cutting funding to climate research.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:Trump will solve this problem by cutting funding to climate research. Enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:This is literally what our previous conservative PM in Canada did. Fired all the scientists, muzzled them and then shut down any project that generated data. I remember an article earlier in the thread that talked about the damage that caused to ongoing research, and even after Trudeau assumed office, they only got a fraction of their original funding back. Even if Trump is in office for a single term and the situation swings back to something sane in 4 years, defunding NASA Earth Science et al is going to set climate research back a decade or more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Wanderer posted:There's a non-trivial chance that people who are asking these questions may not be as up on the subject as you are. They might be younger than you, or they may simply be recently aware of environmental issues. Being a dick to them is counterproductive. People should be shamed for being illiterate and ashamed of being illiterate, otherwise they won't learn. Don't go jumping to the defense of people who are willfully ignorant in the face of decades and libraries and obvious vistas of the what's going on. Besides, being a dick is the only thing of value we can bring to this problem now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Protect the MacDonald Ice Rumples.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:52 |
|
|
Save the Whale
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 03:52
|
|
